Hey, all I know is if I say I don't agree with gay marriage I am instantly branded a homophobic hater.

Well, if marriage didn't come with several legal benefits I might not really care if gay marriage was legal or not. But as it stands marriage allows couples many things that without marriage they are denied. For that reason I think it is unacceptable to deny gay couples the same rights as straight couples in regard to marriage and the associated benefits.

If in your opposition to gay marriage you also expressed a desire to end special legal treatment for married people then I would think your position might possibly be valid. As it stands you are advocating for a society that provides benefits to heterosexual couples and denies them to gay couples. You may not hate gay people, but you are advocating for a system that is detrimental to them.

Bottom line, however, my view on this is based on my support of individual freedom. I think individuals should be free to associate with one another on a voluntary basis however the parties involved see fit. The caveat being that you must be capable of providing consent (of legal age) in order for the association to be considered voluntary. So save the marrying you dog crap.

Well, if marriage didn't come with several legal benefits I might not really care if gay marriage was legal or not. But as it stands marriage allows couples many things that without marriage they are denied. For that reason I think it is unacceptable to deny gay couples the same rights as straight couples in regard to marriage and the associated benefits.

If in your opposition to gay marriage you also expressed a desire to end special legal treatment for married people then I would think your position might possibly be valid. As it stands you are advocating for a society that provides benefits to heterosexual couples and denies them to gay couples. You may not hate gay people, but you are advocating for a system that is detrimental to them.

Bottom line, however, my view on this is based on my support of individual freedom. I think individuals should be free to associate with one another on a voluntary basis however the parties involved see fit. The caveat being that you must be capable of providing consent (of legal age) in order for the association to be considered voluntary. So save the marrying you dog crap.

Work cited http://gaymarriage.procon.org/ it stats thisI however am not for gay marriage. this does show both sides of the argument though. and to be fair i put both pros and cons. i also would like to say the choices we make now are not going to effect us, but they will effect the world our kids will inhabit.

PROS
1.It is no one else's business if two men or two women want to get married. Two people of the same sex who love each other should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment (357 KB) and receive the same benefits of marriage as opposite sex couples. [40]

2.There is no such thing as traditional marriage. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered "unnatural” in evolutionary terms. [3]

3.Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court declared in 1974’s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause.” US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses (343 KB) .” [41]

4.Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families (117 KB) as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them. The Massachusetts Supreme Court wrote in an opinion to the state Senate on Feb. 3, 2004 that offering civil unions was not an acceptable alternative to gay marriage because "...it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status." [42]

5.Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. [4] The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the City’s economy and $184 million to the State’s economy (127 KB) over three years. [43]

6.Gay marriage will make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt children. In the US, 100,000 children are waiting to be adopted (319 KB) . A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and had fewer social problems (293 KB) . A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers were "as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents (144 KB) .” [44] [45] [46]

7.Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits and recent research suggests that refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry has resulted in harmful psychological effects. [5] The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others wrote in a Sep. 2007 amicus brief, "...allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them access to the social support (277 KB) that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support.” [47]

8.Allowing same-sex couples to marry will give them access to basic rights such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. [6] An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by the New York Times estimates that a same-sex couple denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime compared to a married heterosexual couple. [7]

9.The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association found that more than a century of research has shown "no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." [8]

10.Marriage in the US is a secular and dynamic institution that has gone under several major transformations. Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision. Coverture, where a woman's legal rights and economic identity were subsumed by her husband upon marriage, was commonplace in 19th century America. No-fault divorce has changed the institution of marriage since its introduction in California on Jan. 1, 1970. Nancy Cott, PhD, testified in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that "[c]ivil law has always been supreme in defining and regulating marriage” (343 KB) and that religious leaders are accustomed to performing marriages only because the state has given them that authority. [41]

11.Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values.” A study published on Apr. 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly found that "[l]aws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage (109 KB) , divorce, and abortion rates, [or] the percent of children born out of wedlock..." [48]

12.Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage. [2]

13.If marriage is about reproduction, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. George Washington, often referred to as "the Father of Our Country,” did not have children with his wife Martha Custis, and neither did four other married US presidents. [9]

14.Same-sex marriage is a civil right. The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia confirmed that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man," [60] and same-sex marriages should receive the same protections given to interracial marriages by that ruling. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), on May 19, 2012, named same-sex marriage as "one of the key civil rights struggles of our time." [61]

Cons

1.The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman. In the Oct. 15, 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson (186 KB) , the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.” [49]

2.Marriage is already threatened with high divorce rates (between 40% and 50%) (851 KB) and with 40.6% of babies being born to unmarried mothers (312 KB) in 2008. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would further weaken the institution. [50] [51]

3.Gay marriage could potentially lead down a "slippery slope” ending with giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry. [10] Glen Lavy, JD, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, argued in a May 21, 2008 Los Angeles Times Op-Ed, "The movement for polygamy and polyamory is poised to use the successes of same-sex couples as a springboard for further de-institutionalizing marriage." [11]

4.Gay marriage is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups. The Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church, Islam, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex marriage. Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples may lead to churches being forced to marry couples and children being taught in school that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage. [12]

5.People should not have their tax dollars used to support something they find wrong. Gay marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s health insurance policy. On Dec. 17, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending (28 KB) between 2010 and 2019. [37]

6.Gay marriage will lead to more children being raised in same-sex households which are not an optimum environment for raising children because children need both a mother and father. Girls who are raised apart from their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for early sexual activity (827 KB) and teenage pregnancy. Children without a mother are deprived of the emotional security and unique advice that mothers provide. An Apr. 2001 study published in American Sociological Review suggesed that children with lesbian or gay parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior (3.9 MB) . In the 1997 book Growing up in a Lesbian Family: Effects on Child Development, Fiona Tasker, PhD, and Susan Golombok, PhD, observed that 25% of sampled young adults raised by lesbian mothers had engaged in a homoerotic relationship, compared to 0% of sampled young adults raised by heterosexual mothers. [13] [52] [53]

7.Gay marriage will accelerate the "assimilation” of gays into mainstream heterosexual culture. The gay community has created its own vibrant culture. By reducing the gap of opportunities and experiences between gay and heterosexual people, this unique culture may cease to exist. As M.V. Lee Badgett summarizes, "marriage means adopting heterosexual forms of family and giving up distinctively gay family forms and perhaps even gay and lesbian culture." [14]

8.The institution of marriage is sexist and oppressive; it should not be expanded but weakened. Paula Ettelbrick, JD, Professor of Law and Women's Studies, wrote in 1989, "Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships." [15] The leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New York said in July 1969, "We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression.” [16]

9.Same-sex marriage has lead to increased acceptance of single parenthood and has undermined the institution of marriage in Scandinavia. Sweden began offering same-sex couples benefits in 1987, followed by Denmark in 1989 and Norway in 1993. According to a Feb. 29, 2004 report by Stanley Kurtz, PhD, 60% of firstborn children in Denmark and a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. [17]

10.Marriage is not a right. Society can choose to endorse certain types of sexual arrangements and give support in the form of benefits to these arrangements. Marriage was created to allow society to support heterosexual couples in procreation and society can choose not to give the same benefits to same-sex couples. [18]

11.Marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples because homosexual relationships have nothing to do with procreation. Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification. [19]

12.Marriage is a religious rite. According to a July 31, 2003 statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II, marriage "was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman (67 KB) …” [54]

13.Same-sex marriage is not a civil right, and conflating the issue with interracial marriage is misleading. Matthew D. Staver, JD, Dean of the Liberty University School of Law, explained: "The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics... 'Sexual orientation' does not meet any of the three objective criteria shared by the historically protected civil rights categories." [62]

“Silence is golden, and gold is up these days, so silence is a solid investment.”
― Jarod Kintz

Not necessarily homophobic but please please give me one good logical argument against it? What of whom would it hurt to allow gays to get married? I have NEVER heard a decent argument against it.

I really don't want to start one of THOSE threads again, but...

I have NEVER heard a decent argument FOR it. The arguments for all boil down to "people should be able to marry whoever they want". To me, though, that's clearly not a reasonable argument because the vast majority of people in this country (including those who support gay marriage) are against incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, non-sexual marriages (think "blood brothers", etc.).

"Giving to the poor is an essential part of Christian morality. I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I’m afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare... If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things that we’d like to do but cannot do because our charitable expenditure excludes them." --C.S. Lewis :-)

I have NEVER heard a decent argument FOR it. The arguments for all boil down to "people should be able to marry whoever they want". To me, though, that's clearly not a reasonable argument because the vast majority of people in this country (including those who support gay marriage) are against incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, non-sexual marriages (think "blood brothers", etc.).

I'm for all of those forms of marriage. I do try hard to be consistent in my philosophical beliefs, even when it's difficult.

What do you say about marriage benefits? Is it okay to deny those to homosexual couples because they aren't engaged in a legitimate relationship to begin with?